If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

No, that would have lead to bigger troubles...but it could have been settled by Senior Leadership that thought it through before hand.

Hey, Patrick is home from school. We shot his slug gun in today and are going to spend the day tomorrow hunting deer. Tomorrow is a "doe" day in Virginia so he said "If it's brown, it's down...yada, yada, yada." That kid talks so much crap it is unreal. He is already talking about taking a buck in the morning and a doe in the afternoon. I told him he should concentrate on one and go from there...

Anyway, we are meeting the guys at about 7:00AM (kind of late for me but we're guests so whatever they want to do...) Should be a nice day. I'd like to take a deer with him but I think it's more important just to be in the woods with him, you know?

Be Well My Brother Regards,

Joe S.

I would agree with causing more problems on a real battle field with real soldiers but these guys are nothing more the jihadist gang bangers bent on murder and mayhem.

Good luck on the hunt tomorrow…maybe your host feeders are set for 8:00AM…that’s the way those Texas boys do it.

As a review, here's your claim about the Gitmo prisoners which I said was patently false:

Of the nearly 800 men brought to Guantanamo since the detention network was built at the U.S. naval base in January 2002, about 250 remain. The majority have been released or transferred to their home countries for lack of evidence to put them on trial for war crimes.

1) there's never been any official accounting of why individual prisoners were released, so presumtions of their innocence or "lack of evidence" is purely wishful thinking on your part.

2) the bulk of them were released at a time when they weren't being officially afforded any rights and at a time when trials for war crimes wasn't a consideration. Therefore, they couldn't have been released because there was a lack of evidence for trial because no trials were being planned for them in the first place.

Those are the purely factual reasons why your statement was incorrect. Here are the common sense reasons:

3) we know for sure that most of the Gitmo detainees came from A-Stan or were handed over by Pakistan. While there's not been a precise accounting of the nationalities of captured prisoners, it is commonly accepted that a sizable chunk of them (if not most) are Arabs. Arabs captured in A-stan and the tribal regions of Pakistan. Hmmmm. I wonder what they could have been up to? I wonder if they might have info we could use?

4) to state that a majority of the 800+ people who were picked up on the field of battle were ultimately released because there wasn't proof of their guilt (in ANY court of law) presumes an incompetence on the part of the US military that's beyond belief.

5) the 800 or so scum that have spent time at Gitmo represent a tiny portion of the scum we've caught in the WOT/A-Stan/Iraq. Wouldn't common sense indicate that there's probably a pretty damn good reason we went through the trouble and expense to fly them half way around the world to Gitmo when the vast majority of other captured prisoners are dealt with locally? Again, unless you want to make the case that the military is grossly incompetent, it is pretty safe to assume that nearly everyone who received a ticket to Gitmo probably deserved it.

Are there/were there some innocent men that were sent to Gitmo? I'm sure. But to contend that most were defies logic. And when you contend they were kicked loose because there wasn't evidence to try them, it defies facts.

As a review, here's your claim about the Gitmo prisoners which I said was patently false:

Originally Posted by Hew

1) there's never been any official accounting of why individual prisoners were released, so presumtions of their innocence or "lack of evidence" is purely wishful thinking on your part.

There are five Guantanamo inmates being ordered released by a Federal Judge as of this moment. {Fact}
Am I to believe that the Government has released inmates from Guantanamo who pose a threat to the US. Please tell me what status the inmates would be in order for the US to release them. Or worded another way, who are they releasing other than innocent people.

Originally Posted by Hew

12) the bulk of them were released at a time when they weren't being officially afforded any rights and at a time when trials for war crimes wasn't a consideration. Therefore, they couldn't have been released because there was a lack of evidence for trial because no trials were being planned for them in the first place.

This is a circular argument and makes no sense at all. This doesnt change my initial assertion that there still might be innocent people in Guantanamo

Originally Posted by Hew

Those are the purely factual reasons why your statement was incorrect. Here are the common sense reasons:

3) we know for sure that most of the Gitmo detainees came from A-Stan or were handed over by Pakistan. While there's not been a precise accounting of the nationalities of captured prisoners, it is commonly accepted that a sizable chunk of them (if not most) are Arabs. Arabs captured in A-stan and the tribal regions of Pakistan. Hmmmm. I wonder what they could have been up to? I wonder if they might have info we could use?

I got it: 1. Your an Arab
2. Your in Afghanistan
3. US picks you up and sends you to Gitmo because you might have
info that we could use.
How did I miss that.

Originally Posted by Hew

4) to state that a majority of the 800+ people who were picked up on the field of battle were ultimately released because there wasn't proof of their guilt (in ANY court of law) presumes an incompetence on the part of the US military that's beyond belief.

Call it what you will but many of them have been released. I don't think they are that incompetent that they would release inmates who they have a strong case against.

It is absolutely pathetic that there are those people who seem more interest in the “constitutional rights” of Arab fighters than they are interested in the protection of this country. What is your motivation?

I understand Joe’s argument and we just disagree on the issue…Joe is a “give the guy the benefit of the doubt” while I am the “why take a chance” type of guy.

Please tell me what status the inmates would be in order for the US to release them. Or worded another way, who are they releasing other than innocent people.

The bulk of those released have probably given us as much info/intelligence as we're going to get out of them and are no longer useful. Gitmo isn't a Holiday Inn to provide jihadis with three hots and a cot.

This is a circular argument and makes no sense at all. This doesnt change my initial assertion that there still might be innocent people in Guantanamo

Your contention was that most Gitmo detainees have been released because there wasn't enough evidence to try them for war crimes. The bulk of the releases were before trials were even considered, so how could "lack of evidence for trial" possibly have been a reason for releasing them? And no, your initial assertion was not that there might still be innocent people in Gitmo. In case you forgot, here's what you said: "The majority have been released or transferred to their home countries for lack of evidence to put them on trial for war crimes."

It is absolutely pathetic that there are those people who seem more interest in the “constitutional rights” of Arab fighters than they are interested in the protection of this country. What is your motivation?

I understand Joe’s argument and we just disagree on the issue…Joe is a “give the guy the benefit of the doubt” while I am the “why take a chance” type of guy.

Me too, PJ. And the reason we feel that way is because we believe them when they say they want to kill us all...that they cannot live harmonious with a Christian democracy, for we are without question infidels. Yet, we have the ACLU types that think they can persuade them to change their ways...kinda like stumbling into a camp of cannibles and thinking you can convince them not to place you in their stew.

HEY, YOU IMBICILES, IT'S ALL THEY KNOW.

If only we could convince all you dreamers to join ranks and go to Afganistan, and break bread with these loonies. And then you can tell us how many you were able to convert to a live and let live philosophy.

In the meantime, all you are spewing is hypocrasy. You are no different than the atheist not confronted with a foxhole. You're reminiscient of the idiots portrayed as the leadership in the city of San Francisco in all the Dirty Harry movies. It's always enjoyable to me to see true justice handed out, especially when it involves smarmy linguini-spined liberals.

UB

When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

It is absolutely pathetic that there are those people who seem more interest in the “constitutional rights” of Arab fighters than they are interested in the protection of this country. What is your motivation?

PJ, it's time for America to be a world leader again. The Arab "boogey man" arguement is getting old. That was George Bush's ONLY focus during his presidency, at the expense of everything else and you see what happened to our country.

Let's work to convict detainees who are guilty and release those who are not--I'm not a fan of the "they speak Arabic so they must be guilty." Providing them with "constitutional rights" should, in no way affect the outcome of a trial. Indefinitely locking up people without charges or rights makes us no better than the dictator we deposed in Iraq.

...that they cannot live harmonious with a Christian democracy, for we are without question infidels.
UB

It isn’t just us Christians UB ...it is anyone that is Non-radical Muslim...the kill Jews, Christians, atheist, other Muslims, they really like killing homosexuals. If you are not a radical Muslim you are a potential target.

So, now they are POWs, huh? If they were treated as POWs, we wouldn't have the situation we have now. Problem is, President Bush and his Ace #1 Legal Team have said they aren't POWs.

Regards,

Joe S.

Ok Joe,
In any other war they would have been POW's cause they were fighting for a country.
Bush Admin declared them enemy combatents. What would be your take on how they should be defined?

What rights should they have? Should they have the same rights as our citizens under the Constitution? Maybe Geneva Convention rights should apply but what country do they represent and what country wants them?

I have not seen any data showing that even Iran will claim them, though they probably had alot to do with their funding.

Want them released to go take shots and plant EID's directed at our kids serving in Afganistan? How about having a few of them plan the next attack on Innocent People somewhere else around the world.

Please tell me, Qui Chang, what should we do??

Think I'll just dance on rainbows and fart sunshine like the dude in the brown robe with doves flitting obout his head while waiting on the answer.